What began with a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple calling for a sperm donor in rural Topeka, Kansas ended in court on Wednesday with a judge ordering the donor to pay child support.

William Marotta claims to have waived his rights as a parent during the process, but Shawnee County District Judge Mary Mattivi maintained that the parties did not enlist a licensed physician, which nullifies his claim to being a sperm donor.

“In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process,” Mattivi wrote in her decision, according to AP.

The case to have Marotta declared the father was filed by Kansas Department for Children and Families in October 2012. He could now effectively be held responsible for around $6,000 in assistance already provided by the state along with future child support payments.

Marotta’s attorney slammed the judge’s decision and claimed the state was “vilifying” his client.

This Bundesliga
promises many action this holiday season, with some teams efficient at
competing with the prize. Germany's sturdy showing for the 2006 Earth Cup
helped improve league from the eyes of the many spectators, and it has become
far more competitive subsequently.
http://www.scorespro.com/soccer/germany/bundesliga/

Shame on them. Well, then, I believe paying the child support should entitle him to visitation. And he has to pay the state back for what they shelled out? It's not like he was purposely defrauding anyone. Just those 2 witches were. By pretending all they wanted was a donor, when in fact it appears that was a lie. Shouldn't these women be responsible to pay back the money & not someone who gave them a gift? Unbelievable!

Helping a couple conceive (gay or not) is generally an act of nobility, but all I have to say is "caveat donate". Satisfying a procedure or not, this judge has a lawful duty to understand what is going on here and to not be a robot of the law. Every case is different, and of course I do not know the particulars, but it appears the couple had an agenda, besides raising in child in poverty. Sorry dude, even though you donated, you still got screwed.

This is almost as ridiculous as reading about states that are starting to allow custody and visitation rights for rapists who impregnate their victims. Less offensive, but seriously...this is just stupid.

So, this woman had a child that she expected the state to help pay for it? I think we found the real cause of the problem.

Sorry Mr. biological father, but this woman is obviously borderline retárded. Better YOU pay child support than ME. That is what you are asking for. You are telling me that you had a contract with this woman, so now I should help pay for her child instead of you?!?!?! Your contract is supposed make me responsible?!?!

I feel really bad that this happened to the guy. If this woman was financially stable, then I would really hate this ruling. But she isn't. So sorry I agree with the ruling.

I hope the dad gets to rename the kid Jesus, because, like the other one we know, he's now on the hook for a kid he brought into the world without even having the benefit of actually getting laid first.

This case illustrates the fact that it is time for men to rise up
against the system. I tried to email the judge in this case, and the
entire court house staff has disabled the email option to contact them.
Why do states have departments, staff and huge amounts of power to
enforce child support, but the man has to pay to even attempt to enforce
visitation rights? Why isn't the other female in the relationship
paying support? Why wasn't the guy offered custody if he could do it
without public aid, as every father should be offered? To the judge, I
say that you are a feminazi coward. I hope some man evens the score with
you.

Wow! Folks! Read the last paragraph of the article. It was not "these women" who sued the biological father. The Kansas Department for Children and Families wanted to get off the hook for the assistance they would normally provide and chose to go after him. Would they have done that if the parents were straights with a fertility problem?

Now we can have a discussion of whether aid to dependent children is good or bad public policy, though that is not the subject of the article, but keep in mind the rules for that should be the same regardless of how the child was conceived. Also keep in mind that a lot of families have lost good jobs due to the economic mess this country is in, putting them in need of assistance that they otherwise would not have needed

I think that if he has to assume responsibility as the father of the child, i.e. financially, then he should also be entitled to the privilege that a father is entitled. He should be able to visit the child, have every other weekend as well as shared legal custody with regard to decision making and the like and these women should be forced to comply. If they are insisting that he contribute financially to the care and maintenance of the child then he should be allowed to assume the role of the child's father and co-parent with the biological mother of the child (not the partner who isn't). This would only be fair..

These women are taking advantage of this man's generous heart. He helps them create a family and this is how they repay him? I am appalled.

I am a lesbian myself, and I would be embarrassed and feel as a parental failure, if I had to rely on my sperm donor's money. These women make the rest of us look bad. If you can not financially support your own family then you should not start one. Ask help from family and friends, take extra jobs, but do not exploit someone who helped you create a family. This is absolutely disgusting.

Ignorance of the law does not negate one from it's consequences. Fathering the child (which he did) without the involvement of a licensed physician (because that's the LEGAL distinction between "sperm donor" and "father") makes him responsible for financially supporting that child when necessary. In Kansas, whether you waive parental rights or not, you are still responsible for child support if requested by the parent with custody, which the mother did by requesting support from the state (which this article leaves out). Strip it down to facts and look at it. If they would have gone through the proper channels and had it done by a doctor in a clinic instead of using a syringe at home (which the article also leaves out), this wouldn't even be an issue.

And contrary to many rantings and ravings, this isn't a discrimination against gays, and it isn't Kansas making a stand against unnatural means of conception. It is the state holding the father of a child responsible for her care instead of placing that burden on tax payers. If this were some dead-beat dad, nobody would have a word to say in his defense. It's their fault for not understanding the consequences of their actions due to incompetence.

@Rubicon14 If this is a continuation of the similar story from last year, it's not even the women who are going after him; it's the government.

Basically, the women went onto some sort of wellfare. And the government went after them to get child support from the father. They refused to tell, but then the government did something to force them (I forget what), and they had to reveal the father.

The issue isn't that he has to pay them, it's that he owes the government for the money that the govt paid to the women.

@JohnTrumph Nor should he take the blame for these two liars. Unfortunately, there won't be a winner here. If they were not financially able to care for a child (whether together @ this point or if they broke up) then they should not have gone ahead with taking his more than generous donation. They duped everyone, including their child: they duped him into thinking he was doing a "no-strings-attached" favor, duped the governemnt into giving them money, and in the future will have to explain to this child why they were duping everyone into believing all they wanted was a baby to love, and duped EVERYONE into believing they were up-standing, honest, loving, responsible people. I just don't understand why the 2 of them cannot afford to raise this child? Single parents do it all the time without any help from anyone! Time to pull up your big girl panties & be responsible & leave this guy alone!

@ShaneMeekerWhat a disgusting post. You sound like a crackpot MRA who shouldn't be allowed out of his parents basement.

Child support and visitation are two separate issues. He doesn't/didn't want visitation with the child. The child has no relationship with him, therefore it would not be IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST to be removed from a home with a loving parent and placed with strangers. The other woman in the relationship has no legal ties to the child because Kansas does not recognize same-sex marriages, therefore the state (knowing who the bio-father was) went after him for support.

They signed a contract, but it wasn't legally binding. Everyone involved should have done their research before getting into this mess.

@sagebrush That doesn't matter. They were still the ones who wanted the responsibility & did the defrauding, so THEY should have to pay back the governemnt, get jobs, and support this child themselves so the can do the right thing and NOT CASH the checks he's required to send!!

@BonnieMoserWildt Bad enough Kansas wants the sperm donor to pay support for a child he wanted nothing to do with from day one. Now you decide justice would be best served if he not only has to pay, but also has to raise the child he never wanted to raise. What a terrible life for the kid

@WhatsInYourMind Ideally, I agree with you, and honestly, I am tempted to say that the law should be made a bit more flexible in regards to this. Honestly, if these individuals had an agreement in regards to this beforehand (regardless of whether or not he actually had sex with one of them), then he should be completely off the hook for paying child support (and he shouldn't have any parental rights either if he decides to go in this direction).

@CherryChic I still tend to disagree with you...It was not his negligence causing him to not know this fact. Although, I, myself would have double-checked the contract (or brought it to a lawyer to check, just in case...) I imagine since the contract was drawn up and he signed it, he truly believed these 2 had done research, correctly had it written up, maybe even had a lawyer look it over. I truly believe he was just trying to be a great guy & help these 2 out! They have now reuined it for other generous souls to donate and bring the happiness of a child into the life of someone who has no other way. So sad.

@CherryChic Exactly. And for about $25 he could have contacted his local Lawyer Referral service beforehand and had a 1/2 hour with an attorney who would have told him about the licensed physician requirement. He learned a very expensive lesson.

@CherryChic Yea you tell them. What's in the legal code is always what's right. Despite what some people may say, things like lynching blacks was absolutely right when it was legal. Who cares about common sense. It's not like laws ever change because what's legal is always right.

@CherryChicThat is the main point here. They didn't pay the people with the lobbyists (doctors and fertility clinics), so they are going to make an example of this guy and whip them into shape. Money talks.

@CherryChic Good God. If you're going to make a cute attempt at coming across as a person with an opinion worth listening to, please don't butcher basic grammar, punctuation and sentence structure. Also, double-spacing after a period went out of style once the manual typewriter was replaced. The English language is beautiful. Your use of it is not.

@CherryChic "Ignorance of the law does not negate one from it's consequences."

Yes, I know of this legal principle, though I am not sure if this legal principle should remain in practice. After all, aren't there literally thousands of laws? Not everyone can remember all of these laws--after all, we are not computers or robots.

Also, as I previously said, either way, I am tempted to say that the law should be made more flexible in regards to cases such as this one.

@Miss_Sadie@ShaneMeeker Nor did he want to be a father or financially responsible for this child!! Your reply negates your own point - sperm donation & fatherhood are also 2 different issues!! And, a piece of paper between two adults does make them parents. Someone wanting a child & raising them makes them a parent. The fact that their marriage is not recognized doesn't mean anything to this case. If it did, would that mean that ALL children brought into this world by unwed partners just the responsibility of whoever birthed them? I'd love to know how to get a contract like this for something I really want! I've seen oral contracts upheld in court. This is absolutely ridiculous!

@Miss_Sadie@ShaneMeekerThe issues should not be separate issues. women you that for revenge and personal gain all the time. Kansas is full of religious hypocrites and it shows. As for living in my parents basement, I am 50 years old and lost my parents a couple of years ago. I also own my business and have the means to come discuss this with you if you have the guts to face me at your home. You are a nasty (r)unt. I think you know what letter really belongs there.

@ShaneMeeker @sagebrush Bad idea. If someone does not want to be a physically present parent, there is usually a good reason, unless they are just a shmuck. I would not want to have to force my children to visit a parent who does not want to see them.

The case to have Marotta declared the father was filed by Kansas Department for Children and Families in October 2012. He could now effectively be held responsible for around $6,000 in assistance already provided by the state along with future child support payments.

It still DOES NOT change the fact that he did not defraud the state...They did! He didn't know what they were doing since he IS NOT a part of their lives.

@MartinHarvey@CherryChic And being a sanctimonious ahole went out of style eons ago but you obviously didn't get the memo. If you want to whine and moan about grammar go find a more suitable forum -perhaps aholes r us dot com or something along those lines.

@D-Nice@ShaneMeekerYou don't understand my point at all. When a woman is not getting child support, it costs them nothing to enforce. The state uses it's power and resources to destroy the guy and give the mother her revenge for free.

On the other hand, the guy has to pay out of his own pocket for a lawyer and all the costs to go to court. In the end, he gets a judgement for his visitation that the court won't enforce. This is not equal rights.

@SarahKay Everyone seems to be missing the friggin' fact that HE WAS A SPERM DONOR!! Of course he did not want involvement in a child's life! He was just helping someone out! He is not a schmuck, he was a sucker...